It seems that gaming interests are again running the gambit across the Ohio voting public, two years after that same voting public soundly defeated the fecal matter that was Ohio Issue Three - Learn and Spurn Act. Unlike OL/E (aka Educate and Obfuscate, per Pho), this measure doesn't seem to tie education into gambling, but it does advocate the construction of a casino in Clinton County (where?) which, according to proponents, will create 5,000 (!!!) new jobs.
My problem: gambling relies upon gamblers having disposable income. People who are gambling and don't have disposable income need help, be it counseling, additional pay, friends, whatever. In a time when disposable income is down, proposing a new casino and expecting new jobs and not losing money on the casino is risky business.
Thus, it is with this logic that I must tell fellow Ohio voters to JUST SAY NO to Ohio Issue 6 on November 4.
October 29, 2008
October 27, 2008
McCain-Palin still running Joe the Plumber meme
Just seen on FiveThirtyEight:
McCain's campaign's continued use of the Joe the Plumber meme confounds me, largely because Joe the Plumber turned out to be a near total fraud. So, back-tax-owing Americans, ready for your tax break from John McCain? Ready to lie about your status in society to get the loving look from the media only to turn out to be a flash-in-the-pan scam?
If Wurzelbacher decides to run for Congress against Kaptur in 2010, I think I might venture a couple visits to the Toledo area to campaign against that tool.
McCain's campaign's continued use of the Joe the Plumber meme confounds me, largely because Joe the Plumber turned out to be a near total fraud. So, back-tax-owing Americans, ready for your tax break from John McCain? Ready to lie about your status in society to get the loving look from the media only to turn out to be a flash-in-the-pan scam?
If Wurzelbacher decides to run for Congress against Kaptur in 2010, I think I might venture a couple visits to the Toledo area to campaign against that tool.
October 24, 2008
Attention, my 4 readers!
Until healed or too drunk to feel, posting will be limited due to an injury to my right hand.
Best.
-rl
Best.
-rl
October 23, 2008
Big Ten shock
The Big Ten poll has some shocking numbers, so shocking that Matt Drudge won't touch them, putting Barack Obama ahead by double digits in all of the states they polled.
Big Ten Battleground Poll
So say we slide those Indiana EVs away from John McCain and to Barack Obama and we have Obama winning 348 to 190. And thus we have a bonafide landslide in the works. Add to that Quinnipiac having Obama up by 5 in Florida, and we move deeper into landslide territory: Obama 375, McCain 163.
If that's what it is, I think that's Obama's maximum potential for this election cycle. It will be hard for someone to make further inroads in places like Georgia, Texas, West VA, until that someone has 4 years of good leadership under his belt. I wish I could see the future, but I can safely predict November 4 will be a good night for America.
UPDATE:
Now with fancy-pants map.
-rl
Big Ten Battleground Poll
So say we slide those Indiana EVs away from John McCain and to Barack Obama and we have Obama winning 348 to 190. And thus we have a bonafide landslide in the works. Add to that Quinnipiac having Obama up by 5 in Florida, and we move deeper into landslide territory: Obama 375, McCain 163.
If that's what it is, I think that's Obama's maximum potential for this election cycle. It will be hard for someone to make further inroads in places like Georgia, Texas, West VA, until that someone has 4 years of good leadership under his belt. I wish I could see the future, but I can safely predict November 4 will be a good night for America.
UPDATE:
Now with fancy-pants map.
-rl
I'll take "Give Me a Reason Why We Should Trust You Now" for $500, John.
You really have to hand it to John McCain. He's got this proclivity to either to be mendacious or point out the obvious, and lately he's been tottering between both.
Senator McCain, I want to know what your influence was to keep the excesses of the last 8 years from happening, otherwise I feel no reason why we should trust you. I mean seriously now: you talk the talk of the fiscal conservative, but when your feet
(and Sarah Palin's) get put to the fire, you're still sucking on the federal government's teet for projects. I don't have a problem with using federal funds for useful projects, but what I do have a problem with is saying you oppose them, but not having the ability to lead your Congressional delegation (at least the 6 AZ Rs) to do the same.
Anyway, back to the point: why should we trust you? You've waived your judgment for the President for the last eight years... I haven't an idea why you think we should waive ours.
-rl
October 22, 2008
Less than 13 days away...
... barring an apocalyptic event for Barack Obama, I predict he will be the next President of the United States.
More questions on the her Palinifcations?
Break ties, Sarah! That's what you do! That's it! You're not a legislator, Mrs. Cheney! Seriously, if you don't want to play "gotcha", don't give wrong answers!
In other news, Politico: RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion, but of course Drudge Report is noticeably lacking this story.
Someone had to have her not wearing camos on the campaign trail.
-rl
October 16, 2008
An interesting exchange on Israel
Last night Rep. Paul Broun, (GA-10, R) was hosted by the UGA College Republicans and Dawgs for Israel for a discussion on Israel and Middle East peace. I went into it knowing how Rep. Broun views certain aspects of the Middle East conflict, but still managed to be totally and completely flaggergasted by some of his statements.
Rep. Broun opened with roughly fifteen minutes of statements as to why America needs to maintain its relationship with Israel, mainly sticking on the section of Genesis stating, and I paraphrase, "Blessed be Israel and blessed be the supporters of Israel," and he wants to apply it to today.
The big difference between the time of the writing of Genesis by either J or E and today is that the state of Israel as we know it today didn't exist, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the author(s) of that (or those) verse(s) wasn't referring to a state of Israel (though one did exist in tandem w/ the Kingdom of Judah), but rather the Israelite people as a whole, that is to say "Be nice to the Jews, and you'll be blessed."
So, consequently, being nice to the Jews doesn't necessarily entail supporting today's state of Israel, because one can be nice to the Jews and also be nice to the Palestinians. The fact of the matter is, the need to learn how to cohabitate and aggression from both ends needs to end. Representative Broun, though, seems to believe that Israel has a seemingly infinite right to defend itself, even if defense means offense. Broun disagreed with Israel's decision to cede the Golan, West Bank territories, and the Gaza, without establishing any sort of reason why. Does he forget that at the time of the State of Israel's creation, they didn't hold those lands?
I asked him, if he's so set in believing that supporting Israel is set in the Torah, would he support Israel expanding to become the size of the Kingdom of David, taking in portions of Jordan and Syria. He parried away the question by saying of course not and offered still no reason why he opposed the withdrawal of Israel from the aforementioned areas.
A contingent of students from what I assume is Athens for Justice in Palestine were present, also offering very serious questions for which Rep. Broun offered little substance.
I didn't like Paul Broun except for a handful of issues prior to last night. Now I dislike him more. I look forward to the forthcoming exchange with Bobby Saxon, since Broun won't let himself be seen within miles of Saxon. Such character. Such chutzpah.
Shalom,
-rl
Rep. Broun opened with roughly fifteen minutes of statements as to why America needs to maintain its relationship with Israel, mainly sticking on the section of Genesis stating, and I paraphrase, "Blessed be Israel and blessed be the supporters of Israel," and he wants to apply it to today.
The big difference between the time of the writing of Genesis by either J or E and today is that the state of Israel as we know it today didn't exist, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the author(s) of that (or those) verse(s) wasn't referring to a state of Israel (though one did exist in tandem w/ the Kingdom of Judah), but rather the Israelite people as a whole, that is to say "Be nice to the Jews, and you'll be blessed."
So, consequently, being nice to the Jews doesn't necessarily entail supporting today's state of Israel, because one can be nice to the Jews and also be nice to the Palestinians. The fact of the matter is, the need to learn how to cohabitate and aggression from both ends needs to end. Representative Broun, though, seems to believe that Israel has a seemingly infinite right to defend itself, even if defense means offense. Broun disagreed with Israel's decision to cede the Golan, West Bank territories, and the Gaza, without establishing any sort of reason why. Does he forget that at the time of the State of Israel's creation, they didn't hold those lands?
I asked him, if he's so set in believing that supporting Israel is set in the Torah, would he support Israel expanding to become the size of the Kingdom of David, taking in portions of Jordan and Syria. He parried away the question by saying of course not and offered still no reason why he opposed the withdrawal of Israel from the aforementioned areas.
A contingent of students from what I assume is Athens for Justice in Palestine were present, also offering very serious questions for which Rep. Broun offered little substance.
I didn't like Paul Broun except for a handful of issues prior to last night. Now I dislike him more. I look forward to the forthcoming exchange with Bobby Saxon, since Broun won't let himself be seen within miles of Saxon. Such character. Such chutzpah.
Shalom,
-rl
October 14, 2008
The National Leadership Deficit
In an effort to pander to people calling themselves evangelical, or otherwise "Christian", I've discovered something thick within both Democratic and Republican circles: the desire to appear that G-d comes first for them as politicians. I can appreciate the idea that people put G-d first, especially if one is truly religious, regardless of religion. That's a quality that I admire in priests, imams, ministers, rabbis, and other religious leaders. However, that is not a quality I admire in politicians. Politicians are elected to lead us as citizens, participants in our grand political system, and provide workable solutions to problems which confront us, without causing too many more.
If we seek a country with morals, we need look to ourselves and spiritual leaders, not to our political leaders, as too often we find that the people who talk the talk can't walk the walk. What does this say about them? They don't believe what they say, be it that they were in a "weak" moment (or ten) or a scandal. This is the issue which has poisoned American politics for the past 20 years... each side is trying to portray itself as holier than the other, when really neither is too holy to begin with.
It seems to me the people who best embody the ideals that the American public seems to want are those who don't wear it on their sleeves. Whether I can objectively prove this remains to be seen, although certainly a search of speeches and news items will likely yield a quick answer.
What is the underlying psychology for voting for these people? Many know at heart that these politicians are corrupt and can be proven to not be the holier-than-thou sort. Why do others keep buying into it? Do we have some sort of off-kilter sense of right and wrong when it comes to our politicians? These people who we elect regularly want to enforce sections of Leviticus, but ignore the pleas of the Psalmist to comfort the widow, care for the orphan, not defraud the poor. Does this not seem right to anyone else? It seems to me that it's a very narrow-minded holier-than-thou attitude, one which places obeying ritual laws of thousands of years ago over obeying those of ethical laws.
Now we are at a point of loggerheads: the people who have failed to lead because of their perceived desire to serve G-d over their citizen are confronted with the failures of the leadership. We have at best hobbled infrastructure, the consequences of allowing unregulated forms of investment, and people looking at our future more with more discouraged outlooks than we have had in recent memory. And why?
We have politicians whose concern is to maintain power, rather than wield it effectively and for good. The national leadership deficit, directed both at both parties, is crippling our country. We need leaders now more than ever to repair the mess that non-leadership have created.
-rl
If we seek a country with morals, we need look to ourselves and spiritual leaders, not to our political leaders, as too often we find that the people who talk the talk can't walk the walk. What does this say about them? They don't believe what they say, be it that they were in a "weak" moment (or ten) or a scandal. This is the issue which has poisoned American politics for the past 20 years... each side is trying to portray itself as holier than the other, when really neither is too holy to begin with.
It seems to me the people who best embody the ideals that the American public seems to want are those who don't wear it on their sleeves. Whether I can objectively prove this remains to be seen, although certainly a search of speeches and news items will likely yield a quick answer.
What is the underlying psychology for voting for these people? Many know at heart that these politicians are corrupt and can be proven to not be the holier-than-thou sort. Why do others keep buying into it? Do we have some sort of off-kilter sense of right and wrong when it comes to our politicians? These people who we elect regularly want to enforce sections of Leviticus, but ignore the pleas of the Psalmist to comfort the widow, care for the orphan, not defraud the poor. Does this not seem right to anyone else? It seems to me that it's a very narrow-minded holier-than-thou attitude, one which places obeying ritual laws of thousands of years ago over obeying those of ethical laws.
Now we are at a point of loggerheads: the people who have failed to lead because of their perceived desire to serve G-d over their citizen are confronted with the failures of the leadership. We have at best hobbled infrastructure, the consequences of allowing unregulated forms of investment, and people looking at our future more with more discouraged outlooks than we have had in recent memory. And why?
We have politicians whose concern is to maintain power, rather than wield it effectively and for good. The national leadership deficit, directed both at both parties, is crippling our country. We need leaders now more than ever to repair the mess that non-leadership have created.
-rl
October 10, 2008
Where do you stand, John Sidney McCain?
Evermore disgusted by the inability of John Sidney McCain to act like a leader in a time of chaos and crisis, many voters should be waking this morning to a clarion call: John McCain is not suited to lead this country now.
He may have been suited to lead in 2000, when the dot-com bubble bursting was the worst effect of hyper-speculation in markets and we had no daily reminders of the consequences of terrorism. But the year is 2008, a financial crisis of nearly unrivaled proportion is thrusting the global economy into fits of selling, and terror is something to fight, not something to use for fighting. No, instead of leading, John Sidney McCain is trying to connect Barack Obama to people of questionable backgrounds, much like what happened during the primaries with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and is launching attacks on the character of Senator Obama based on purely speculative trash.
Instead of taking responsibility for helping to create this mess that Wall Street has created for us, Senator John Sidney McCain instead tries to disown himself of it. And he seems to glory in it, all the while trashing Senator Obama for knowing people, irrespective of whether Senator Obama actually agrees with these people or not. Instead of creating solutions, Senator McCain throws stumbling blocks before the blind. Why should we vote for you, John Sidney McCain?
Really, why? Sarah Palin seems to have no real grasp of any foreign or domestic federal policy, so there's no real reason to vote for you because of her... garr... what's the difference between a bulldog and Sarah Palin? A bulldog can protect people. John Sidney McCain, your choice of Sarah Palin to be your Vice President demonstrates clearly that your mind thinks of matters very superficially, and that you and your running mate, like your attacks on Barack Obama, have very little depth beyond your glitz and glamor.
So where's the beef, John Sidney McCain? Where do you really stand? I know where Barack Obama stands... but where do you really stand? Do you stand with me or do you stand with the people who control, well beyond my boss's bosses, whether or not I will have a job? Do you stand to have principle or do you sit because all of your courage is predicated on your abuse in Vietnam? This campaign has demonstrated that you left your courage in Hanoi. You and Senator Clinton proposed cutting the gas tax for the summer, a transparent ploy to gain votes on a policy that could have created more harm than good, a ploy that Senator Barack Obama opposed.
Best wishes,
-rl
He may have been suited to lead in 2000, when the dot-com bubble bursting was the worst effect of hyper-speculation in markets and we had no daily reminders of the consequences of terrorism. But the year is 2008, a financial crisis of nearly unrivaled proportion is thrusting the global economy into fits of selling, and terror is something to fight, not something to use for fighting. No, instead of leading, John Sidney McCain is trying to connect Barack Obama to people of questionable backgrounds, much like what happened during the primaries with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and is launching attacks on the character of Senator Obama based on purely speculative trash.
Instead of taking responsibility for helping to create this mess that Wall Street has created for us, Senator John Sidney McCain instead tries to disown himself of it. And he seems to glory in it, all the while trashing Senator Obama for knowing people, irrespective of whether Senator Obama actually agrees with these people or not. Instead of creating solutions, Senator McCain throws stumbling blocks before the blind. Why should we vote for you, John Sidney McCain?
Really, why? Sarah Palin seems to have no real grasp of any foreign or domestic federal policy, so there's no real reason to vote for you because of her... garr... what's the difference between a bulldog and Sarah Palin? A bulldog can protect people. John Sidney McCain, your choice of Sarah Palin to be your Vice President demonstrates clearly that your mind thinks of matters very superficially, and that you and your running mate, like your attacks on Barack Obama, have very little depth beyond your glitz and glamor.
So where's the beef, John Sidney McCain? Where do you really stand? I know where Barack Obama stands... but where do you really stand? Do you stand with me or do you stand with the people who control, well beyond my boss's bosses, whether or not I will have a job? Do you stand to have principle or do you sit because all of your courage is predicated on your abuse in Vietnam? This campaign has demonstrated that you left your courage in Hanoi. You and Senator Clinton proposed cutting the gas tax for the summer, a transparent ploy to gain votes on a policy that could have created more harm than good, a ploy that Senator Barack Obama opposed.
Best wishes,
-rl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)